combination of RTS and TPP

It sounds rather ambitious, and I have actually envisioned this type of gameplay before. My idea was actually to have an MMORTS that is a persistent world where as a new player you start as a basic unit of your chosen faction, basically a worker or basic fighter, but then grow up into more units and control buildings working in alliances with other players to challenge other alliances who are in a more resource rich sector. I know thats kinda vague but I don't wanna be too descriptive because I want to address your idea.

Your idea is not bad, but I think it would be a challenge to perform actions from both scales simultaneously. Let's say you have 15 swordsmen and a couple magicians, you ordered them to engage a nearby army, then you scale down to control one of the swordsmen, what advantage would you have of controlling this 1 swordsman over having full vision and control over your entire army? Would have to be split screen I think to be useful so you can see whats going on on a macro scale at the same time.

39 minutes ago, NukedPenguin said:

what advantage would you have of controlling this 1 swordsman over having full vision and control over your entire army? 

This one will be granted more power and special attacks during the course of TPP only. Which can lead a lossing battle into a win probably.

Moreover its never gonna be like StarCraft 2(even if try) so player won't have to focus on the bottleneck strategies right away from TPP view.

For start I will make NPC based opponent.

The following games were RTS/FPS hybrids, so the concept has precedence. Tweaking it to be third person instead of first person would be a minor change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savage:_The_Battle_for_Newerth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlezone_(1998_video_game)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlezone_II:_Combat_Commander

Savage and BZII have 'commanders' on a team which see things from an RTS-style camera. The other players on the team play in FPS view and receive orders from the commander. There are AI controlled units as well. BZII's commander can also play first person if they want.

The advantage of a human pilot in BZII's hovertanks vs. an AI pilot was that a player typically has a much higher skill than the AI did.

1 hour ago, Nypyren said:

Savage and BZII have 'commanders' on a team which see things from an RTS-style camera. The other players on the team play in FPS view and receive orders from the commander. There are AI controlled units as well. BZII's commander can also play first person if they want.

Is it a multiplayer team based game game.

Because I am planning to make solo player.

I am not amazed its like I am expecting it. Because the probability of getting the idea as a first person in millions of people who have worked before you in the same field is pretty low

3 hours ago, Uttam Kushwah said:

Is it a multiplayer team based game game.

Because I am planning to make solo player.

I am not amazed its like I am expecting it. Because the probability of getting the idea as a first person in millions of people who have worked before you in the same field is pretty low

Battlezone 2 is not multiplayer-only, it has a pretty good singleplayer campaign as well. It's a great, very unique game and one of my all-time favorites, because I love both RTS and FPS. The feeling of being right in the center of the action is unlike any other game I ever played (except its predecessor Battlezone 1). Unfortunately, it clearly shows its age, with physics and graphics far below modern standards. It recently received a minor touch-up / "remaster" (see link below), but they changed less than I had hoped for. It's basically still the same game, only with some improvements to textures, effects and compatibility with modern hardware and operating systems.

I think you greatly overrate the importance of having totally unique idea that nobody else had before. And especially in this genre mix, there are so few titles that yours would still be very much unique. I mean, what problem are three or five slightly similar games, compared to e.g. classic RTS, where there are hundreds of almost identical titles?

A couple more games with a similar idea you can look at:

- Men of War franchise: It's more or less a standard RTS, but you have the option to "take direct control" of any unit, allowing you to do things like strafe with infantry and aim at weak points with tanks. The game is more RTS than TPP, but taking direct control of units is crucial.

- Battlestations: Midway / Battlestations: Pacific: This is a naval combat game: you are primarily in direct control of ships/aircraft, but you can switch between them at any time, and you have a rudimentary "RTS map" to give orders. When you are not controlling units they are controlled by AI. You are mostly doing all the important fighting yourself, and the map is there mostly to ogranize your ships. It's the complete opposite from Men of War.

Don't forget about Brütal Legend.

Brütal Legend is often described as having RTS gameplay, but I don't think it did. What it had was more like "tower defense/offense* where you produce your own waves". Also, there is no direct control of units except for the main character.

But it did have an interesting way of switching between third person fighting and overhead giving orders - the main character could fly

* today a "symmetrical tower defense/offense" would be called a MOBA, but I don't like that name ?

31 minutes ago, wurstbrot said:

I think you greatly overrate the importance of having totally unique idea that nobody else had before.

Just because it gives you some extra confidence to work with. But with those titles mentioned up there now i can see them as a reference.

And the most important thing is to get something made up in your hand, which you understand fully.So that you can modify it when a creative bubble pop up in your thoughts chain.

You could already do this in Dungeon Keeper 2. It was good to let the player know the skills of the different units. Other than that it felt unnecessary and you lost control over the other things happening at same time, which made it a loosing move.

2 hours ago, Uttam Kushwah said:

And the most important thing is to get something made up in your hand, which you understand fully.So that you can modify it when a creative bubble pop up in your thoughts chain.

"It" Means the game "you" Myself as developer

I meant if you have your own game in your hand which you understand fully than you can modify it when you get a good idea to get more valuable product.

21 minutes ago, wintertime said:

Other than that it felt unnecessary and you lost control over the other things happening at same time, which made it a losing move.

It sounds like it would be hard to balance the two genres, you would end up either playing the RTS and ignoring direct control because you lose too much without the RTS overview, or having to play direct control all the time because your units are useless without it.

...Which reminds me of another game: Carrier Command: Gaea Mission (because I am not familiar with the 1998 Carrier Command). In that game, you got some units that you are "remotely controlling", and you can give them RTS-like commands, but in practice they will just die if you don't babysit them at all times.

It's worth noting that in Battlezone 2, IMHO, the mix of RTS and FPS works really very well. In that game, FPS mode isn't just a gimmick without real play value. Actually, every mission begins in FPS mode, and RTS ("satellite overview") mode isn't even available until you build a "command center". And switching to RTS perspective is done in a really cool way, by jumping out of your vehicle, walking into the command center and pressing in front of a screen inside the building. Accordingly, if your command center gets destroyed, or if you leave the building, RTS view is lost.

Also, the command interface (i.e. how you give orders to your units) is the same in RTS and FPS mode, the only difference is the perspective. In FPS mode, obviously, you only see what's directly in front of you, while in RTS / command center mode, you see the battlefield from an overhead perspective and can freely pan around the map.

All the while, the game is playable in both FPS and RTS mode alone, although it's easier in FPS mode, due to the advantage of direct vehicle control vs. indirect AI control. Also, I always had the feeling that you get a better overview over what's happening in FPS mode (due to "being there") than in RTS mode, even though this is contradictory to what you'd expect. Still, RTS mode is not useless, since it helps a lot especially for base building and/or in situations when you need to pay attention to multiple places on the map at the same time. The two modes are really well balanced.

Ok i have seen most of the above mentioned game's gameplay I didn't find any one resembling to what I am trying to do. Its something like AOE RTS perspective and pubg TPP although the commanding will be same as in any typical RTS but in TPP player won't have control on other than selected unit.

The only problem I Will be having is to maintaining the balance between these two genres so player won't sucked up into one side of the game, simply offering the player need for both views equally(I don't know how but it will work out somehow). Apart from all the game core development which is still hanging on my neck like sword but it has it's own thrills to offer me. ?????

Thanks every one for all of your knowledge and time.

To successfully mix RTS and TPP, get comfortable with compromising.

If you have a pure RTS system and a pure TPP system, even if both elements work flawlessly, the player is forced to juggle the two conflicting systems. Unless juggling is a desired skillset, you'll need to dilute each system with a bit of the other if you want the player to use them both.

some ideas hopefully worth considering:
- Remove any and all peasant ordering from the RTS. The less micromanaging required, the more free the player is to go into TPP.
- Allow order issuing while in TPP mode (like in Star Wars Battlefront)
- Produce squads instead of individual units. TPP mode would then take control of the squad leader.
- RTS mode orders entire sections at a time. TPP mode allows ordering small groups / individual units.